Is it possible that the Russians instructed the Arab pathologist how he could brush trace amounts of polonium on Arafat's tissue samples before he gave them to the team? (Could the same have happened with Suha, which would explain why suchabnormally large amountsof polonium were found - amounts that would have indicated Arafat had ingested enough to have been killed within hours, not weeks?)

If you thought that the exhumation of Arafat was completely transparent,think again:

Around 60 samples were taken from the remains of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for a probe into whether he was poisoned by polonium, a Swiss newspaper reported Sunday, quoting a lead investigator.

The samples were distributed among three teams doing separate analyses eight years after Arafat's death in a French hospital, Patrice Mangin told Le Matin Dimanche.

A Palestinian pathologist was the only person allowed to touch the body when Arafat's grave was opened on Tuesday in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

He was able to "take all the samples that were wanted, around 60 in total," said Mangin, the director of the Swiss University Center of Legal Medicine in Lausanne.

OK, that's the second irregularity around this investigation.

The first one was why are Russians involved in the investigation, together with the Swiss (who did the initial testing on Arafat's personal items) and the French (since Arafat died in Paris.) What do the Russians have to do with it - except for the fact that they happen to live where polonium is most available?

Is it possible that the Russians instructed the Arab pathologist how he could brush trace amounts of polonium on Arafat's tissue samples before he gave them to the team? (Could the same have happened with Suha, which would explain why suchabnormally large amountsof polonium were found - amounts that would have indicated Arafat had ingested enough to have been killed within hours, not weeks?)

I can see no valid reason to stop the Swiss and French from taking the tissue samples directly. the unfortunate fact is that any Palestinian Arab involved in the investigation is automatically suspect - because the PLO haspublicly calledArafat's death a "murder" for years.

At approximately 00:30 (Feb. 19), an IOF [sic] warplane fired a missile at a training site used by Izz Addin al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, in Yafa Street, east of al-Tuffah neighborhood in the east of Gaza City. The bombardment resulted in damages to the neighboring establishments, especially Gaza Martyrs Boys Basic School. The windows of the school crushed and damages were caused to the exhibit, the library and the book store in the school. Around 600 students attend this school which employs 23 teachers. The school which measures 4 donums is located 12 meters to the east of the targeted site.

PCHR admits here (without condemnation, of course) that Hamas placed a military site only 12 meters away from a school! (Or, perhaps, they placed the school meters away from their military site.)

According to YellowPages.ps, there is a hospital across the street from the school, too.

maandag 3 december 2012

“The PLO has paid a heavy political price for this representation because it relinquished its claim to the lands of 1948,” Hamdan said. “Therefore, the real achievement lies in the liberation of the land, the return of the refugees and achieving steadfastness on the land. These are the achievements which the people respect and appreciate.”

The Hamas leader said that the UN vote in favor of upgrading the Palestinians’ status would be considered a political achievement “only if it were part of a comprehensive strategy for liberation, with the resistance being its main basis.”

Osama Hamdan says Palestinian state without an armed struggle against Israel is an illusion, won't add anything for Palestinians.

A Palestinian state without an armed struggle against Israel is an illusion and won’t add anything for the Palestinians, top Hamas official Osama Hamdan was quoted Sunday as saying.

Hamdan, who is based in Beirut, said that the result of the UN General Assembly vote last Thursday on the statehood bid was a “political step, but not a victory or great achievement.”

He pointed out that the PLO already had representation in the UN.

“The PLO has paid a heavy political price for this representation because it relinquished its claim to the lands of 1948,” Hamdan said. “Therefore, the real achievement lies in the liberation of the land, the return of the refugees and achieving steadfastness on the land. These are the achievements which the people respect and appreciate.”

The Hamas leader said that the UN vote in favor of upgrading the Palestinians’ status would be considered a political achievement “only if it were part of a comprehensive strategy for liberation, with the resistance being its main basis.”

Hamdan explained that Hamas had welcomed the statehood bid “because it reflected the international community’s readiness to fix what it corrupted in Palestine.”

He also reiterated Hamas’s commitment to the armed struggle against Israel. He said that his movement would continue to seek the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

PCHR does not identify them as "militants," butall three were terrorists.

Theobituary for Darwishexplains that he joined the Qassam Brigades in 2007, after attending UNRWA schools. Here he is:

The other two have not yet been memorialized at the Qassam site, but Qassam Brigades memorial posters for them have already beenpublished:

Manaama

Jawad

And another:

At approximately 19:50, Israeli warplanes attacked a number of young men who were sitting near a house belonging to Ahmed Mohammed Jaddou Abu Jalal, 43, a member of an armed group, in al-Maghazi refugee camp.He was killed together with 3 civilians, including his brother: Amjad Mohammed Jaddou Abu Jalal, 33.

Amjad was no civilian. Hisobituaryat the Al Qassam site notes he joined the terror group in 2005, where is is praised for firing Qassam rockets and mortars at "settlements," as well as for working on weapons tunnels and for fighting during Cast Lead.

At approximately 21:00 [November 16], an Israeli warplane attacked a motorcycle on which Khaled Khalil Ali al-Shaer, 25, was traveling near Saladin Street. He was killed and 2 persons were wounded.

Once again, PCHR does not identify the casualty as a "militant" as they do with some of the others. Meaning that they counted him as one of the supposed "civilians" killed in Gaza.

And once again, they are lying.

TheAl Qassam Brigades websitenotes that Shaer joined Hamas in high school and joined the Qassam Brigades in 2006, where he was a camp leader. He also attended the "Abu Bara Military Academy" of the Qassam Brigades, taking several military courses. He also fought during Cast Lead.

Neither will the General Assembly's actions move the Palestinians closer to accepting the ongoing Israeli offer to begin negotiations toward a two state solution with no prior conditions. The Palestinians now have little incentive to negotiate a state, which would require considerable compromise and sacrifice on all sides. They now think they can get their state recognized without the need to give up the right of return or to make the kinds of territorial compromises necessary for Israel's security. The United Nations action will only discourage the Palestinians from entering into serious negotiations with Israel.

The General Assembly vote declaring that Palestine, within the pre-1967 borders, is a "state", at least for some purposes, would have nasty legal implications, if it were ever to be taken seriously by the international community. It would mean that Israel, which captured some Jordanian territory after Jordan attacked West Jerusalem in 1967, is illegally occupying the Western Wall (Judaism's holiest site), the Jewish Quarter of old Jerusalem (where Jews have lived for thousands of years), the access road to the Hebrew University (which was established well before Israel even became a state) and other areas necessary to the security of its citizens. It would also mean that Security Council Resolution 242, whose purpose it was to allow Israel to hold onto some of the territories captured during its defensive 1967 war, would be overruled by a General Assembly votesomething the United Nations Charter explicitly forbids. It would be the first time in history that a nation was required to return allland lawfully captured in a defensive war.

If all the territory captured by Israel in its defensive war is being illegally occupied then it might be open to the newly recognized "Palestinian State" to try to bring a case before the International Criminal Court against Israeli political and military leaders who are involved in the occupation. This would mean that virtually every Israeli leader could be placed on trial. What this would entail realistically is that they could not travel to countries which might extradite them for trial in the Hague.

These absurd conclusions follow from the theater of the absurd that occurred when the General Assembly, for the thousandth time, issued an irrelevantly one sided declaration on Palestine. As Abba Eban once put it: "If Algeria introduced a General Assembly Resolution that the world was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass 100 to 10 with 50 abstentions." That's pretty much what happened the other day. I wonder whether the European countries that voted for the Resolution knew what a tangled web they were weaving.

Nor was this Resolution a recognition of the two-state solution, since a considerable number of states who voted for it have refused to recognize Israel'sright to exist. What they were looking for was a one state resolutionthat one state being yet another Islamic country that voted for Hamas in the last election and that is likely to be governed by Sharia Law that will not allow Jews or Christians equal rights.

Neither will the General Assembly's actions move the Palestinians closer to accepting the ongoing Israeli offer to begin negotiations toward a two state solution with no prior conditions. The Palestinians now have little incentive to negotiate a state, which would require considerable compromise and sacrifice on all sides. They now think they can get their state recognized without the need to give up the right of return or to make the kinds of territorial compromises necessary for Israel's security. The United Nations action will only discourage the Palestinians from entering into serious negotiations with Israel.

The United Nations' action will also incentivize Hamas to continue firing rockets into Israel on a periodic basis in order to provoke Israeli retaliation. Many in Hamas believe that the recent fighting in Gaza actually helped the Palestinians get more votes in the General Assembly. They are certainly taking some of the credit for these votes.

All in all, the United Nations vote will make it harder to achieve a peaceful two state solution, acceptable to both sides. But that has been the history of General Assembly actions with regard to Israel, beginning with the lopsided vote in 1975 that challenged Israel's very existence by declaring Zionismthe national liberation movement of the Jewish peopleto be a form of racism. Although the General Assembly was ultimately pressured into rescinding that blood libel, its bigoted spirit still hovers over numerous United Nations agencies which continue to regard Israel as a pariah. It could be felt in the General Assembly hall when so many countries that refused to recognize Israel voted to recognize Palestine.

This is all a prescription for continued warfare, lawfare and enmity. It is not a prescription for resolving a complex and difficult issue in a realistic manner. But what else is new at the United Nations!

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and stressing in this regard the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Recalling its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970,[1] by which it affirmed, inter alia, the duty of every State to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Stressing the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights,

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle, set out in the Charter, of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming also relevant Security Council resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003 and 1850 (2008) of 16 December 2008,

Reaffirming further the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,[2] to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, with regard to the matter of prisoners,

Reaffirming its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and all relevant resolutions, including resolution 66/146 of 19 December 2011, reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine,

Reaffirming also its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 66/17 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State, a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Reaffirming further its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,

Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004,[3]

Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation and that, in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory,

Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,

Recalling also its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, by which it, inter alia, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system,

Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine,[4]

Recalling its resolution 52/250 of 7 July 1998, by which additional rights and privileges were accorded to Palestine in its capacity as observer,

Recalling also the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in March 2002 by the Council of the League of Arab States,[5]

Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,[6]

Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Commending the Palestinian National Authority's 2009 plan for constructing the institutions of an independent Palestinian State within a two-year period, and welcoming the positive assessments in this regard about readiness for statehood by the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and as reflected in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee Chair conclusions of April 2011 and subsequent Chair conclusions, which determined that the Palestinian Authority is above the threshold for a functioning State in key sectors studied,

Recognizing that full membership is enjoyed by Palestine in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia and the Group of Asia-Pacific States and that Palestine is also a full member of the League of Arab States, the Movement of Non‑Aligned Countries, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Group of 77 and China,

Recognizing also that, to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine,

Taking note of the 11 November 2011 report of the Security Council Committee on the Admission of New Members,[7]

Stressing the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine until it is satisfactorily resolved in all its aspects,

Reaffirming the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations,

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;

2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

3. Expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations;[8]

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;

5. Expresses the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the terms of reference of the Madrid Conference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative5 and the Quartet road map to a permanent two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[9] for the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides that resolves all outstanding core issues, namely the Palestine refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water;

6. Urges all States, the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination, independence and freedom;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to implement the present resolution and to report to the Assembly within three months on progress made in this regard.

[1] Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

[2] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973.

[3] See A/ES-10/273 and Corr.1; see also Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136.

Israel's latest military operation, known by the code namePillar of Defense, is in many ways a repetition ofOperation Cast Leadthat Israel launched four years ago in order to "deal a heavy blow to theHamasterror organization, to strengthen Israel's deterrence, and to create a better security situation for those living around the Gaza Strip that will be maintained for the long term."

But, as we know, these goals were never attained.

In the meantime, Israel's prime minister, its army's chief of staff, and members of its security cabinet (except its defense minister) were replaced by others. But when observing Israel's behavior in the current operation, it becomes clear that despite these changes of personnel, the same erroneous patterns of thinking and action in Israel's political and military elite persist.

An op-ed that we wrote in Hebrew almost four years ago, which we translate below, emphasizes the futility of pursuing Israel's current policy regarding Hamas. It is our hope that Israeli leaders will find the courage to break the vicious cycle of attacks and reprisals so that we will not have to reproduce it again in the future.

The military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, during which IDF attacks not only the squads that are firing Qassam and Grad rockets at Israel's territory but also local government institutions, is indicative of a basic flaw in the thinking of Israel's political and military leaders.

This failure, which manifested itself during thewarbetween Israel andHezbollahin 2006, and before that during thesecond Palestinian Intifada, is due to the fact that policymakers in Israel do not distinguish between those on the other side who perpetrate acts of violence against Israel, on the one hand, and those who might, sooner or later, lead to the establishment of a stable government  even if not necessarily sympathetic to Israel  on the other hand.

If anything, Israel's experience since its independence in 1948 shows that the political instability of its Arab neighbors, which was manifested in internal fragmentation and weakness of the central government, was a destabilizing factor in Israeli-Arab relations, whereas political stability in the Arab side usually brought stability in its relationship with Israel.

Thus, for example, Israel has formal peace treaties with relatively stable countries likeEgyptandJordan, and between Israel andSyriathere is an ongoing (and relatively stable) situation of non-belligerency. In contrast, Israel's relations with the Palestinians andLebanonare characterized by frequent military clashes, despite the relative weakness of these two players in relation to Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

What follows is that if Israel would like to reduce violence by non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel should strive for the establishment of a stable government on the other side of its borders. A necessary condition for this is the emergence of recognized leadership and effective institutions.

The logic here is simple: Sovereign states have something to lose  material assets and domestic and international support  whereas non-state actors, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have few assets and do not feel internationally responsible.

Only when the Palestinians and Lebanese have stable states  as in Egypt, Jordan and Syria  Israel will be able to make effective use of its superior military power to achieve a stable relationship with these neighbors, even if these states themselves would not be interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Million and a half Palestinians won't disappear

In the Gaza Strip today, as in Lebanon in 2006, Israel struggles against a non-state actor, Hamas, and uses considerable military force to subdue it. However, even when the Israeli side enjoys a decisive advantage in the air, land and sea, the Israeli army fails to reach a decisive outcome, and the ongoing use of massive military force eventually leads to the erosion of international support for Israel and to the decline of its deterrence, which, according to its leaders, it is interested in strengthening.

Without ignoring the military-terrorist threat that it poses to Israel, Hamas is, first and foremost, a social and political movement which won broad support from the Palestinian public in the most democratic elections held in any Arab society. The social and political institutions that Hamas built in the Gaza Strip since its establishment, moreover, gave its residents a minimum of services, and since June 2007, Hamas also manages to impose a public order, even if it is one that Israel finds unsatisfactory. Destruction of these institutions now will leave the Gaza Strip in governmental and social chaos which, in the long run, may exacerbate the risks to Israel.

A million and a half Palestinians living today in the Gaza Strip will not disappear even if Hamas will be defeated militarily by Israel, an outcome which in any case is questionable in light of the unsuccessful attempt to defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon. In fact, Israel has a clear interest in the consolidation of a stable Palestinian state that has authority over the Gaza Strip, even if this state itself is not friendly with Israel.

Indeed, only if Israel will calculate its steps wisely and the Palestinians will be permitted to establish such a state, then one can expect that, in the long run, non-state actors like Hamas will cease to be a threat to Israel, as is the case with similar non-state actors operating in Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

What Israel needs now is not a military victory over Hamas but to quickly turn its non-state Palestinian rival into a stable state.

Dr. Oren Barak is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is an expert on contemporary Middle East

Prof. Avraham Sela is a senior lecturer in the Department of International Relations and a research fellow of the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem

Palestine Today reports that billboards to "Thank Iran" for Gaza's "victory" have been popping up all over Gaza.

An analyst interviewed about these billboards (almost certainly paid for by pro-Iranian terror groups like Islamic Jihad) pretends that these are somehow spontaneous expressions of thankfulness by Gazans of Iran.

Specifically, Iran created "Quds Day," an annual bashfest against Israel; they provided Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets to the terrorists, most of which were shot down but which they still claim is the source of their faux victory; and Iran provided training for the terrorists of Gaza.

The analyst noted that Arab countries were not nearly as helpful as Iran, and hoped that they would start actively funding Gaza's militants.